TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "impugned order". The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That by an order in first appeal bearing number 09/IT/CIT(A)- 5/LDH/2017-18 dt. 21/12/2018 the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act had allowed the appeal of the assessee against the penalty order dt. 12/05/2017 wherein penalty of Rs. 12,30,000/- was imposed on the assessee u/s 271AAB(1)(a). The 1st appeal of the assessee was thus allowed. 2.2 That later on by the impugned order passed u/s 154 of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) upon request made by the Revenue vide their letter dt. 12/03/2019 for rectification of order in Appeal No. 09/IT/CIT(A)- 5/LDH/2017-18 dt. 21/12/2018 has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicable/relevant to the case of the appellant since the facts of the appellant case are totally different and are clearly distinguishable from the above referred case relied upon by the Ld. A.O./Ld. CIT(A) and hence rectification is bad in law. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing rectification application of the Ld. A.O. and sustaining penalty amounting to Rs. 12.30 Lacs U/s 271AAB has grossly erred on facts and in law by ignoring the fact that notice issued U/s 274 r.w.s 271 dated 31.12.2016 by the Ld. A.O. initiating the penalty proceedings is vague notice and is against the law as laid down by the Hon'ble SC in CIT & ANR Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows and Hon'ble Karnataka HC in CIT Vs. Manujanatha Cotton & Ginning Factor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court (supra) only and in the process has totally ignored the submissions that were made before him including case law which were all well considered by him in the earlier order dt. 21/12/2018. 3.4 The Ld. AR on merits of the case reiterated that earlier order of CIT(A) dated 21/12/2018 was well merited and that overall facts were considered including the relevant case laws and basis that penalty was deleted. But in the impugned order sole reliance is placed on the judgement of Allahabad High Court (supra) and that penalty is sustained. 3.5 The Ld. AR then distinguished the facts of the assessee case vis a vis the facts of case before Allahabad High Court as follows: Sr.No. Facts in the case of Appellant Facts in case of PCIT Vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Hon'ble ITAT, Indore in case of Ashok Bhatia Vs. DCIT, Indore in ITA No. 869/Ind/2018 dated 05.02.2020 has also considered the above judgement of Allahabad HC and after distinguishing the same allowed the appeal of the assessee. Refer page 70-89 of P.Book for judgement. 3.6 The Ld. AR then contended that there is no mistake much less apparent mistake which can be rectified U/s 154 of the Act in the order dated 21.12.2018 (appeal No. 9/IT/CIT(A)-5/2017-18) passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-5. The above order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-5 after due consideration of the facts of the case and on the basis of various binding judicial pronouncements, inter-alia, the decision passed in the case of 1. CIT & ANR Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meado....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side. We therefore hold that it was incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to have taken into consideration on his own very order dt. 21/12/2018 and ought not have swayed solely with decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. In the instant case appeal of assessee stands dismissed solely on ground of Allahabad High Court decision (supra) and other cited precedent case law including of ITAT Coordinate Benches have been given a convenient go by an approach wholly untenable in law. 4.3 We conquer with the submissions of the Ld. AR that facts of the present case / instant case are materially different with facts of the case which was before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, basis above table made in para 3.5 (supra). 4.4 We also conquer with the original f....